[Haskell-cafe] Announcing OneTuple-0.1.0
catamorphism at gmail.com
Fri Oct 3 21:26:26 EDT 2008
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Jason Dusek <jason.dusek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Lennart Augustsson <lennart at augustsson.net> wrote:
>> But (a) is not a lifted version of a, whereas (a,b) is a lifted
>> version of the a b product.
>> So it's not consistent, and thereby wrong.
> Well, we can't represent the unlifted product in Haskell,
> right? You have to use some constructor. So if we just say we
> are using tuples to represent unlifted products, what's so bad
> about that?
Unless I'm confused, unboxed tuples represent unlifted products. In a
sense this is "[using] some constructor", but in a sense not, since an
unboxed tuple constructor has no runtime representation.
> The last two messages in this thread suggests this has more to
> do with the internals of Haskell than they do with consistent
> semantics -- so I am perhaps missing the point.
I think most Haskellers try their best to keep the first subservient
to the second.
Tim Chevalier * http://cs.pdx.edu/~tjc * Often in error, never in doubt
"If you don't understand the causes, it is impossible to come up with
a solution." -- Joe Biden
More information about the Haskell-Cafe